walkingdeadfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Carl Grimes (TV Series)
Carl indirectly caused Dale's death? I don't think that Dale should be on Carl's victim list, merely because he encountered that same Walker. If you were to argue that this means Carl is not responsible for Dale's death you might as well say that he indirectly caused Jimmy and Patricia's death because he attracted the Walkers that killed them, and that just complicates things. The beat way around this is to only put deaths that the character is completely directly responsible for, which, so far is Shane causing Otis' death and Hershel causing Sean's death. It can be noted that Carl played a part in Dale's death, but does it really need to be on the victim list? 16:11, April 10, 2012 (UTC) Good point, I'll take that out. Okay, if you're going to put Dale on the list of Carl's victims, maybe you should put Patricia and Jimmy on there? And maybe Rick is indirectly responsible for Sophia's death? 20:30, April 10, 2012 (UTC) No,Shane did attracted the walkers.Because he was threatening Rick to kill him and when Rick stabbed him he nearly shot him but he didn't.He caused the death of Jimmy and Patricia. DraculaTepes14 (talk) 16:15, February 11, 2014 (UTC) Why can't this page be edited? One thing to add.. for deaths caused, add patricia and jimmy at least. If you can argue andrew caused T-dog's death (see page on andrew) by attracting walkers, then you can argue carl caused patricia and jimmy's death by attracting walkers as well. This is easy reasoning to see, there simply must be a lot of carl lovers here who don't want to acknowledge it! lol! LuciferSam94 (talk) 07:37, November 15, 2012 (UTC) This would be far off though, if Carl did not caused the deaths of Patricia and Jimmy, then so did Otis, for shooting Carl because he brought him to the farm, and it would also be Hershel, because he helped Carl get better, and it would be so many other people's fault. - Liam "BanishU" Michaels (talk) 07:43, November 15, 2012 (UTC) In a way, yes.. but I'm speaking from a direct cause and result way of thinking. Not the cause of the cause of the cause, etc.. Point is, if Andrew caused T-Dog's death, which is accepted, then Carl caused Patricia and Jimmy's death. Simple reasoning here, it's virtually the same scenario only with different names, and one was done intentionally while the other wasn't. LuciferSam94 (talk) 07:48, November 15, 2012 (UTC) Then it would be Rick's fault too, as he killed Shane and was the reason that Carl fired the gun. And Shane's fault too, for reanimating. Dale's too for screaming two night before. It would be so many peoples fault, so only if it's directly one persons fault, it should be listed. In my opinion, at least. Kaffe4200 (talk) 08:15, November 15, 2012 (UTC) Clearly someone wasn't listening.. did you even read my post? I said I wasn't referring to the cause of the cause of the cause scenarios.. simply what caused the situation (zombies attacking the farm) which was directly caused by carl's gun. Not rick, not shane. And as I said.. If Andrew caused T Dogs death then Carl not caused the people at the farm's death. And considering the wiki lists Andrew as causing T Dogs death, then it should be fair across the board and list the deaths Carl has caused.. But of course these double standards exist due to you carl lovers.. and since no one cared about that prisoner, no one minds saying he caused the death of whoever. LuciferSam94 (talk) 08:24, November 15, 2012 (UTC) Molly is listed as causing Charles' death because she attracted the walkers that *caused* his death. Why isn't Carl listed as not causing Jimmy and Patricia's deaths when he attracted the walkers that 100% without a doubt *directly* killed them. Please, either get rid of this "indirectly caused" thing or use it logically. The former is preferable. 18:10, March 11, 2013 (UTC) During Carl's confrontation with Jody we have no way of knowing Jody's true intentions were to surrender. 1.Hershell stated for Jody to put down his gun, which he did not do right away (or at all, before Carl acted). It was stated on The Talking Dead that if someone tells you to do something when you have two pointed at you, you should probably do it if you value your life. nick and his brother dalton Arrvied show up don't do it screaming in horror leave him alone please jody did not do anything leave him alone just stop it please jody didn't do anything to hurt you two stupid lame dumb morons dalton and his brother nick ages twelve preteen dalton thirteen teenager dalton his preteen brother nick pull their handguns out who cares nick said i don't know don't care dalton said whoa calm down nick control yourself okay. 2. Jody shifted his eyes back and forth between Carl and Hershell's direction a lot during the confrontation, almost as if he was weighing his odds. My point is thus, we cannot be certain that Jody wasn't about to pull something dumb. :P Age Carl does not have to be 14 just because Chandler is Walking dead did start filming season 1 when Chandler was 9. Mazara meant to make Carl from the TV series younger than chandler is. So, maybe he's 12? we have no proof he is actually 14. Mario5223 (talk) 23:45, July 27, 2013 (UTC) Why did you change Carl's age, it's necessary not uncessary, 13, will soon be 14 was fine, it lets people know that Carl's next birthday will be soon.Spiderachim123 (talk) 18:31, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :It will become necessary when Carl turns 14, now, all we need to know is that he's 13. RelicRaider (talk) 18:39, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :What about Spencer, when it said he was 26, will soon be 27, if we did that then we can do this, it's no different.Spiderachim123 (talk) 18:42, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Logically we'd have to change EVERY characters age to "X soon to be Y" it's unnecessary to say "X soon to be Y" as we never know when their birthday is and there's no point to say they're soon to be the next age.TPShadowDragon[[User talk:Riley Heligo| Born into flame!]] 19:28, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::What do you mean? The survivors are in their 1 year and 6 month of the walker outbreak, we all know Carl will be 14 soon.Spiderachim123 (talk) 19:33, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :::We don't know the month, it's still pointless to say they're going to be the next age soon.TPShadowDragon[[User talk:Riley Heligo| Born into flame!]] 19:36, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Yep, it'd basically just be counting. We all know what age they'll be next if we know their age now, just leave it as it is, we don't need to go into extreme detail. RelicRaider (talk) 20:22, September 28, 2013 (UTC) Who is Briar?????? 16:16, November 2, 2013 (UTC)Anna Copy-edit Here's a thought, if you're going to lock a page to prevent editing, how about you proof-read it first and make sure it isn't an article that could benefit from being edited? This article is riddled with typos. 08:07, November 16, 2013 (UTC) I've unprotected the page, feel free to edit it. Thanks! Axel TWD (talk) 08:08, November 16, 2013 (UTC) Governor I have something suspiciously.Didn't Carl shot the Governor during the war at prison in Season 4?After Rick shoots at Governor after he killed Hershel,it shows Carl shooting and then shows the Gov getting shot on his arm.It is possible? DraculaTepes14 (talk) 16:19, February 11, 2014 (UTC) *Rick shot him. --Mistertrouble189 (talk) 16:20, February 11, 2014 (UTC) *But when he shot,it didn't show Governor getting shot from him,only after Carl begins to shoot. DraculaTepes14 (talk) 15:00, February 16, 2014 (UTC) *Just rewatched it. Rick shoots first, then Carl, then TG is shown being hit. It is more likely Rick since he is much closer. Carl is a lot farther away (with a shotgun), so he is more likely to miss. But it could go either way, though it was most likely Rick who shot TG. --Mistertrouble189 (talk) 15:21, February 16, 2014 (UTC) *I think one of the producers confirmed it was Carl who shot him. Rick's shot was just a random one, to show his anguish at Hershel's demise. Age again So could we get some more citations for his age in seasons 4 and 5? We know that he was 13 in season 3; Chandler Riggs has said as much. But for him to be 12 in season 1 and somehow 15 in season 5 means that, at the very least, maybe two and a half years need to have passed; only 19 months have passed in the show up until season 6, and only 18 by the time season 5 began. This means that he would still be at most 14 when season 5 began. I do not care how old Chandler is. I care about the timeline and I care that the characters' ages fall in line with that. Carl cannot be 15 unless he was 13 when the show began, which is dubious. AlastorMoody (talk) 19:20, January 23, 2016 (UTC) :It was just someone speculating, there is no proof/source that he turned 15 in season five. In an interview (from season four) Andrew Lincoln brought up the 14 years old info. I'll find the video and add it as a source later. :—' } | Pops Capo }}' 23:33, January 23, 2016 (UTC) : Well if the age on Judiths page is to be believed (her being 9 to 11 months old) then Carl can't have aged more than a year or so since she was born, and since she was born in season three, there is no way he could be 16 Scotsoulgem (talk) 00:56, March 31, 2016 (UTC) Carl Losing His Eye Am I the only one who can't stop thinking about that scene where he lost his eye in No Way Out (TV Series)? --Doctor714 (talk) 20:07, February 16, 2016 (UTC)Doctor714--12:07 PM 02/16/2016 No you aren't alone! It was pretty intense... I've been anticipating it for so long! Ihavetogoat (talk) 22:17, March 1, 2016 (UTC) "Alive" status after S6 Finale Why are we assuming Carl to be alive instead of leaving his fate "unknown" as with the other potential victims of Negan's attack? I think this line from Negan might be causing the confusion: "Anybody moves, anybody says anything, cut the boy's other eye out and feed it to his father. And then ''we'll start." I can sort of understand striking Rick from the list based on the way Negan refers to him (though I still don't think it means he's safe), but I don't think this line in any way excludes Carl. Watching the scene over, I don't think it's impossible for Carl to be the victim with this line in mind; in fact I think it makes him slightly MORE likely, as it seems strange for Negan to mention him while his attention is focued on a different survivor. As much as I'd hate to see Carl go, I don't think we can call him safe. If I'm missing any official confirmation that says otherwise, let me know. Rotter1 (talk) 14:37, July 27, 2016 (UTC) Re; "Alive status" Well, if Negan was killing Carl, we would assume he'd say "cut this boy's other eye out" or just do his business. Besides, Carl and Negan have too much history together, and changing that in the TV Series could be potentially crippling. A funnier point that could also be made is that our POV in the episode was complete, if it was Carl's it would be only half a screen. RobertoWalker (talk) 16:18, July 27, 2016 (UTC) : Negan would still absolutely threaten this if Carl was the victim. The quote I used was direct and verbatim, as I had written it down while watching the scene. He ended up not doing it because no one objected, but if someone had, Negan could have cut Carl's eye out to torture him before ultimately killing him. I am in no way saying that this means Carl definitely was the victim, but my argument is that '''Carl is not safe'. : Secondly, you cannot use Carl's relationship with Negan in the comic series as an argument. The continuities of the TV and comic series are not the same (for example, Carol and Abraham are still alive on TV). Besides, the dynamic between Carl and Negan in the comics was helped by the fact that Carl was much younger at this point in the comics than he is here in the TV series (thanks to real-world time and Chandler Riggs hitting puberty). There is no reason that it couldn't be someone else that has that dynamic with Negan in the TV series, such as Enid or even one of the minor young characters that hasn't yet gotten much screen time. It wouldn't be crippling, because characters on the TV series have taken plot lines that other characters had in the comics -- a very strong example is Dale's comic series role being split between Hershel and Bob Stookey after Jeffrey DeMunn left the show early. : Third, you cannot be serious with that final argument. This is no place for jokes like that. And do you really think they'd make it that obvious? You also, for the same reason, can't exclude characters who have hair that falls over their faces just because the hair didn't appear in the POV camera. If no one can present any sort of logical argument as to why Carl is safe, I'm going to just go ahead and change his status to "unknown". Rotter1 (talk) 21:18, July 27, 2016 (UTC) I would reply but the "...you cannot be serious with that final argument. This is no place for jokes like that." Killed it for me. You should leave a message at the talk page of one of the admins, explaining your point to them. until then, I advise you don't change anything. RobertoWalker (talk) 22:04, July 27, 2016 (UTC) I would have to disagree with Carl not being safe. Not to spoil anything (Really its no surprise) but Chandler has been seen on set past the premiere. Chandler also confirmed that Negan and Carl will have an interesting relationship in Season 7. Do you honestly think Carl could be the victim? Why have Carl lose his eye and go though that storyline just to kill him off? Why have him start a friendship/relationship with Enid just to kill him off? And again the line "If anybody moves, if anybody says anything take the boys other eye out and feed it to his father and then we'll start." that implies that Rick and Carl are safe. Negan was standing in front of his victim. He wouldnt threaten the group to be quiet by threatening to take the eye out of the person he's about to kill. Doesn't make sense. Not trying to sound mean, just voicing my opinion. Myelle (talk) 22:30, July 27, 2016 (UTC) : Do you have a source for your claim that Chandler Riggs confirmed an interesting relationship between Carl and Negan? That would be the reason we need to confirm that he is safe. I have never once said that he is "likely" to be the victim, but without that official confirmation we CANNOT say that he is safe based on ambiguous interpretation of a spoken line in the scene. It is not IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the victim (unless there is a reliable source backing up your claim). : The fact that the rest of the potential victims have their status as "unknown" despite the fact that 11 out of 12 of them will survive the attack shows me that this wiki is very serious about marking a character's status as "unknown" if there is ANY chance at all that they might not be alive. It's not like he's a background character liable to be killed off-screen. He was one of the characters placed into the lineup which we know for a fact one character will not make it out of. There is no reason to assume he's alive. Yes, he could be, because he has an 11/12 chance of being alive, but if we are going to mark him as "safe" based on speculation, we could make a case for half of the "unknown" characters. Eugene has an important plotline coming up if we follow the comics, does that make him safe? Rotter1 (talk) 04:01, July 28, 2016 (UTC) : There has still not been any good enough reason presented as to why Carl's status shouldn't be "Unknown". He should not be presumed "Alive" if there is any chance at all that he could be the victim of the attack. As of right now, he has as much chance as any of the others of being the one who dies. You can NOT use the source material to confirm his fate, otherwise we would mark Glenn as "Dead". The TV Series has already gone against the source material with the lives of characters (Andrea and Sophia being dead, Abraham and Morgan being alive) so there is NO REASON to assume he is safe. He very well may be, but his status should be "Unknown" until the premiere. '''Rotter1 (talk) 20:40, July 31, 2016 (UTC) : Negan said "''if anybody moves (blah blah blah) cut the boy's other eye out and feed it to his father and '''then we'll start''". Now, Negan beat his victim to death seconds after saying this, so if he cut out Carl's eye before hand, Carl would likely be dead already, so there would be no point in beating him to death. If he took out Carl's eye after, well, his "eye" would probably be splattered all over the ground. : "You can NOT use the source material to confirm his fate, otherwise we would mark Glenn as "Dead"." Look, I don't know if we're watching the same show here, or if you've even read the source material, but since it looks like you haven't, I'll inform you now that there is a huge difference between the characters of Glenn and Carl. : ..."so there is NO REASON to assume he is safe". Well, I just gave you one, so it could only be logical to drop the subject; Carl's status will remain Alive at least until the premiere. : Colourful Walker (talk) 20:54, July 31, 2016 (UTC)Colourful Walker : most recent tralier implys it might be carl if we go by this wikis own rules we must list him as unknowmn or else we are "spoiling it" : rember when it was impied glen was dead in thank you we were not alowed to list him as unknown or as alive even thogh we all knew he was alive due to you all thinking wikis should have zero spoilers? well now the tables have turned and you are fighting to keep a spoiler posted.(8bitgamer8 (talk) 23:15, October 3, 2016 (UTC)) How about... no? Seriously, we only got three weeks until this stupid show returns, and then there'll be no more reason for this stupid discussion. If you got any problems at all with Carl's status, go talk to an admin, I guess. RobertoWalker (talk) 23:30, October 3, 2016 (UTC) 'Why it says page locked from editng yet an user is right now trolling?' What the tittle says and its not the only page that it says blocked yet some people edit them. just wondering, thanks LastGreene (talk) 08:09, May 12, 2018 (UTC) Suicide = "indirectly caused"? Carl shooting himself in the head is as "directly caused" as can be. Ghost Leader (talk) 10:48, May 21, 2019 (UTC) These are two different things, there is the ; to divide them. "Indirectly Caused" is related to his negligency when he was bitten. Elfrax (talk) 11:01, May 21, 2019 (UTC)